Submission to LGBCE consultation on boundaries 1. Introduction 1.1. This document is Sheffield City Council’s response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (the Commission) consultation on ward boundaries for Sheffield City Council. 1.2. Sheffield City Council believes that the pattern of wards proposed in this submission is the best solution for Sheffield. They represent a pragmatic response to the current electoral inequality, whilst maintaining the best of the current sensible arrangements, with wards shaped around community identity. We have developed our warding scheme based on our extensive knowledge of the city and its communities, boosted by consultation with community groups where required. It represents a largely shared view across political groups, with only a few areas of disagreement. Where there is disagreement between the majority Labour group and minority groups, these disagreements are noted, with an appendix containing alternative proposals. 1.3. Maps of the proposed boundaries are appended at Appendix A. 2. Background 2.1. In October 2012, the Local Government Boundary Commission (the Commission) informed the Council that it was to carry out an Electoral Review of Sheffield City Council in order to deliver electoral equality for voters in local elections. 2.2. The Commission required that in determining the number of Councillors, it agreed the Council’s projected electorate for 2020. Based on Office for National Statistics data, and the methodology set out by the Commission, a projected electorate for 2020 of 415,797 was agreed with the Commission. 2.3. In March 2014 the Commission went out to public consultation on a Council size of 84 elected Members. Following the consultation, the Commission recommended in May 2014 that the Council size should remain at 84 members, and that this Council size would best ensure effective governance and decision making arrangements in the future. 3. Initial considerations 3.1. The last review involved a complete redrawing of Sheffield’s wards and there has been a view expressed by members and interested members of the public that the current wards are a good reflection of natural communities, as well as working well with 1 Sheffield’s geography (which is characterised by a range of hard boundaries which inevitably dictate the way communities develop and work together, and so indicate where many boundaries should lie). Further to this, a significant amount of work has taken place to create ward profiles which are used to assist service provision (for example as a basis for deciding discretionary funding levels), as well as communication being carried out through wards. As a result of this, the Council has taken the approach of retaining the current ward boundaries where possible. Where this has not been possible, current ward boundaries have been used as a starting point in developing the new pattern. Our proposal is based on a regular pattern of 28 three member wards Population versus electorate 3.2. At the start of the review, we expressed our concerns to the Commission that using electorate rather than population size as a basis for deciding council size and particularly for deciding ward boundaries leads to councillors in some areas of the city representing significantly larger populations than those in other areas because electoral registration is lower. In particular, we expressed the concern that areas of lower registration are often those where there is increased population churn and deprivation and the social issues that tend to accompany these (including poorer health and well‐being, social cohesion challenges and high numbers of residents who find themselves in situations of crisis). All of these issues increase the workload of elected members in these areas. 3.3. We appreciate that the Commission is bound by statute on this issue, but our concern continues. Geography 3.4. The geography of Sheffield is dominated by a range of physical features, including hills and valleys, as well as some key roads. The city can be divided into a number of ‘blocks’ bounded by the following physical features: The Upper Don Valley, using the railway as a boundary for much of its length. This has very few crossing points. The Lower Don Valley. This is a large area of business premises with virtually no resident population. Again we have used the main railway line as the main boundary line, though the River Don the canal, or one of the major roads could form alternatives. The railway has the advantage of running along one side of the valley so leaving the valley largely in a single ward. Sheffield Parkway (A57/A630). This forms a strong boundary for much of its length, especially towards the city centre. Mosborough Parkway (A57), this forms a strong boundary, particularly at its eastern end. The Sheaf Valley. We have used the main Sheffield‐London railway line as a boundary for much of its length as there are relatively few crossing points. The Rivelin Valley. We have also used the Rivelin Valley, which is steep sided for most of its length, again with few road links spanning the valley. Sheffield Inner Ring Road – since the last boundary review the new Inner Relief Road has been completed, which sets a very strong boundary around the city centre. 2 3.5. These geographical features have a strong influence on the development of, and links between, communities, and as such they were used by the Council as a starting point when devising wards at the last review, and continue to be the logical starting point today, placing significant restriction on the possible options for developing wards. Where numbers dictate we have at points had to propose wards which cross these boundaries, though only where numbers necessitate it and where physical access is relatively easy. Parish boundaries 3.6. Sheffield includes three parish and town councils, all in the north of the city. Bradfield Parish Council, Stocksbridge Town Council and Ecclesfield Parish Council are all large civil parishes, and their boundaries, in line with the Commission’s guidance, form the basis of ward boundaries. This necessarily influences the shape of the boundaries of the relevant wards, as well as further limiting the options for ward development across the city. Natural communities 3.7. As might be expected in a large city, suburban neighbourhoods run into one another, often relatively seamlessly. Further, communities within much of Sheffield are diverse, and cultural and other identities often have as much influence on where an individual perceives their community to be as geography. Whilst some areas have clear district centres, others do not, and communities on the edge of the city centre in particular will look towards the centre more than to their neighbours. There is therefore, significant overlap between many communities and often no shared view of where an area’s boundaries are, or where particular roads or communities ‘look to’ – for example consultation in Sharrow some years ago showed that there were over a hundred different views on where the boundaries of the community were located, whilst in some areas with a diverse mix (for example the wards of Ecclesall and Broomhill, which have a mix of affluent families and professionals and students), some parts of the community will look to one area for their amenities, while another looks elsewhere, sometimes in different wards. We have worked to keep geographic and sometimes communities of interest together, where possible based on local knowledge. Future‐proofing 3.8. We want these ward boundaries to be in place for the long term. The current rules work against this as they do not allow us to take into account potential new development that does not yet have planning permission in place, even where we are almost certain that house‐building will take place in the medium term. For this reason we have deliberately kept some wards (notably in and around the city centre and wards in the south east of the city) well below the average, as we anticipate that there will be further population increases in these wards which have not been taken into account in the forecasts. In other areas, where we are comfortable that significant development is not anticipated, we are proposing electorate levels which are at a higher variance from the ward average if it improves natural communities, and particularly where communities have explicitly requested particular boundaries. In the vast majority of cases electoral variances are no 3 more than 5% from the average, and in all cases are within the 10% variance allowed by the Commission. Projected build and demolitions 3.9. The projected elector population figures agreed with the Commission have taken into account the best available estimates relating to new build housing that will come into occupation between now and 2020 based on planning permissions as at March 2014. There are no significant proposals for demolitions. Although other future planning cannot be taken into account in the electoral forecast, we are also conscious that our Strategic Housing Needs Assessment indicates the need for between 2000‐2500 houses to be built each year for the next decade. Whilst it is possible that some of this growth will be accommodated in neighbouring districts, there is likely to be continued growth across much of the city. We have taken into consideration proposed housing sites in the Sheffield and Rotherham Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment when considering future development possibility in different areas. City Centre 3.10. As happened between the last review in 2002 and the current review, growth in the Central ward in particular is likely to continue to be significant, although it is not anticipated that development will be to the same extent as in the last decade. Whilst, as in 2002, discussions with the Commission have established that we cannot take these unknown dwellings into account in the forecasts, we have sought to keep the City Centre to the lower end of the permitted variance to minimise the risk of a further early review.